Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "The Life Guide"
channel.
-
9
-
7
-
Let me guess: a conspiracy video showed you a few seconds of the official Apollo 11 press conference, and told you the astronauts were depressed, and that it was their first press encounter after the mission, right? You never lifted a finger to look up the date of that press conference (about a month later), right? You never lifted a finger to find out everything else the astronauts were doing for all of that time, right? You never lifted a finger to watch the entire press conference, to see the astronauts joking and laughing, right? You never saw them answering every single question they were asked, right? A conspiracy video told you everything you actually know, because you're not actually studying Apollo, you're just watching anti-Apollo videos, right?
7
-
6
-
There's no camera in existence with the kind of resolution you're talking about. You have confused distance with resolution. Yes, you can see galaxies millions of lightyears away with telescopes, however, those galaxies are hundreds of thousands of lightyears in diameter. You can't see a bacterium on the wing of an airplane with a telescope either, and those just fly a few miles up. Why? Because resolution is the problem, not distance. And, seeing a flag on the moon is mostly about resolution. In order to get better resolution than we have, you need bigger lenses. In order to see the lunar landers on the moon (16 feet across) from Earth, you need a lens about 75 feet in diameter. But, it would just be a dot. You wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot. In order to see it in enough resolution to know what it is, you'd need a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. As for flags, sorry, I haven't bothered with the math on that, but, obviously, you're talking about an even bigger lens. You can do the math yourself by looking up the formula for "optical resolution" and use it to calculate the lens size required.
The closest thing we have to a picture of the Apollo 11 flag comes from Arizona State University's LRO camera (in orbit around the moon). The flag is too small to occupy more than about a pixel or two. But, if you look at sun angle 12:36 (shortly after high noon), there is a bright spot right where the flag was planted (and knocked over by the rocket blast).
The LRO images of the other 5 landing sites won't show the flag itself, because, from above, they'd just be a really thin bar (they weren't knocked over). But, by scrolling through the sun angles, you can actually see the shadows of the 5 remaining flags traverse across the lunar surface as the sun rises and sets. So, yes, we know those other 5 are still standing.
There is no such thing as "the dark side of the moon" (outside of a Pink Floyd song) in the context you're saying. All sides of the moon get equal light, just like Earth. A lunar day is 708 hours instead of 24 hours. But, yes, it still rotates relative to the sun, so, it has daytimes and nighttimes. The "dark side" is whichever side is facing away from the sun at any particular moment.
6
-
5
-
"the russians are the first to send a camera to the moon so they did kinda win."
Huh? When was a race to send the first camera ever declared? I mean, the Soviets also sent the first probe to Venus. I guess they "won" that also. But, in order to win a race, don't all the participants need to know they're even in the race to begin with?
"btw, these austronats we love to idolize, are the same people that dont like the idea of space travel being commercialized. according to them, only special people deserve to go to space."
Well, ya know, we don't exactly have airliners in space. And, going to space requires a different level of skills that most people don't have. So......
"they completely rejected elon musk. good thing elon pretty much gave them the middle finger and pretty much putting nasa to shame lolol."
Well, first of all, Musk's comments about some stuff regarding space travel are downright ridiculous. $200,000 to go to Mars? You can't even buy the fuel for that, let alone the 99.99% of the rest of the stuff required. I mean, I could sit here and rattle off a few hundred Musk quotes that demonstrate that he has zero understanding of rocketry or space travel. But, whatever. You won't listen anyway. But, middle finger to NASA? Huh? Where do you think SpaceX gets most of its money? Hint: NASA. Who do you think writes the requirements for the rockets? Hint: NASA. Do you even understand how NASA works?
4
-
4
-
Buzz Aldrin saw the flag get knocked over by the rocket blast upon liftoff from the moon. All 5 of the other missions' flags remain standing, and this is confirmed by the LRO photography that shows the shadows of the flags from the various sun angles. But, the Apollo 11 flag doesn't project a shadow on the surface, thus, it's no longer standing (confirming what Aldrin said). If you look at the LRO photography from a sun angle of 12:39 (just after lunar high noon), you will see a bright spot on the lunar surface right where the flag was. The resolution is not good enough to 100% confirm, however, given what we know, and its placement on the surface, it's likely that the flag is at least intact enough to make the orbiting LRO see a lighter "color" (it's black and white, but, you get the idea) at that spot. If the flag was completely deteriorated and absorbed into the lunar dust, it probably wouldn't generate that bright spot. But, we don't know for certain until/unless a camera gets a lot closer.
4
-
Why would you believe you understand this topic better than the entire planet's experts staffed at the world's 77 countries with space agencies? The evidence for Apollo is mountainous. The evidence against Apollo is laughable, and falls apart instantly upon any scrutiny. I would barely know where to start, because there's enough evidence to write entire encyclopedias about it, but, what do you have to say about last year's photography from China and India? Each sent orbiters to the moon, you know. Chang'e (China) and Chandrayaan (India). Last year, each of those countries released some orbital photos of a couple of the Apollo landing sites. You can see the landers in exactly the spots they're supposed to be, as photographed during the missions themselves, and as photographed by LRO about 10-12 years ago. India's photos are so good, as a matter of fact, that you can even see the flame deflectors and the shadow of the Apollo 12 flag (still standing) just north of the lander (exactly where it was planted 54 years ago). How do you explain this? You sit there and act as if you know better than India's and China's space agencies. And, you've come like a hero to YouTube comments to enlighten the world about how YOU know things that the entire planet's space agencies do not? Is that how this goes?
3
-
3
-
"So your telling me"
Once again, as you usually do in all of your posts, you have demonstrated that every moon landing denier has the writing skills of a 2nd grader.
"in 1969 but cant do it today?"
Well, you do know that Artemis 1 is orbiting the moon right now, right? But, ok, land on it, no, not until the lander is ready. You do know they retired the moon lander program in 1972, right? There are plenty of things in aviation/space we could do in the 1960s and 1970s that we cannot do today. Why do you single out Apollo as an issue for you? We can't fly mach 7 airplanes right now either, you know. We can't fly Concorde airplanes. We can't fly SR71s. All of those programs have been retired, and we have nothing with those same capabilities to replace them. Does that mean they're all fake?
"At leaset prove that you can do it."
Again, would you make that demand of Concordes? We don't have any functional ones left. So, unless someone can fly one right now, it's fake?
"Our technology is way better than it was 50+ years ago."
Well, some technologies are better now. But, some were better back then. So what?
"3 men went roughly 239,000 miles and landed perfectly on the moon"
No. Nobody says that. 2 men would go to the surface. You don't even know anything about Apollo.
"0 problems?"
Apollo 15 crashed into the moon so hard that the engine bell cracked when it smacked the surface. Apollo 13 exploded in space and they never landed on the moon. Apollo 11 missed its intended landing spot by miles. Apollo 14 never got to its main destination. Good grief. Must I go on?
"nor did they have enough technology to make that happen."
So, what particular technology was lacking? Can you name it? And, then, can you explain why none of the thousands of engineers who designed and built the technology you're talking about, ever realized that they failed to design and build it correctly?
3
-
3
-
3
-
So, you won't answer any questions or challenges I put forth. And, when you try to muster up enough courage to make some sort of statement yourself, it's got more spelling and grammar errors than a 2nd grader would make. You then try to shift topics off of the Apollo program, and onto me instead. Nothing I've ever asked or stated has anything to do with who I am, what I am, or what my politics are or aren't. I state facts that are easily verified, which demonstrate that you don't understand ANYTHING about this topic. So, you attack the messenger instead. Right. Genius. Sure. And, now, you're simply using an argument from incredulity. You state that we didn't have technology to communicate with the moon in 1969. But, yet, backyard HAM radio operators were able to bounce radio signals off of the moon since the 1950s, able to have conversations by using the moon itself as a radio reflector. It's called a "moon bounce" or "EME" (Earth moon Earth). Oh, but you don't think it was possible 15 years later?? Huh?? Did you even graduate high school? I'm guessing you flunked out of the 10th grade, never to return, right?
3
-
@doubled21352
Dewdrop, you don't know what you're talking about. There were 50 years in between the first time someone dove to the deepest ocean depth and when it was done again. There were 50 years in between when someone first sailed around the world and when it was done again. There were 4000 years in between building the pyramids and when mankind ever constructed a building that big again. The most significant and expensive landmarks in human history are often not repeated for very long periods of time. And, Apollo was a far bigger and more expensive program than any of those things.
If you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed $16 billion per person who walked on the moon in hard costs, and another $5 to $7 billion in soft costs and international support. Again, PER PERSON who went to the lunar surface. It took 400,000 people in the USA, and another 50,000 people in other countries a decade of their lives to make it all happen. That's 4.5 million years' worth of human effort you want to throw in the trashcan. And, why? Because you don't understand that massive programs like that are not often repeated very quickly? Apollo spent more time/money/manpower per man (who walked on the moon) than any other program in human history. The Egyptian pyramids cannot even rival Apollo. Oh, but you're going to "lol" it all away because you don't understand it.
And, following in history's footsteps, it was 47 years between the last time mankind set foot on the moon and when congress funded another program to do it again (Artemis). Why is this a problem for you?
What does camera footage have to do with any of this anyway? Why would you bring it up? There are 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface, 110,000 photos taken from lunar orbit, about 80 hours of mission video footage (around 25 of those hours on the lunar surface). Yet, you sit there and comment about cameras used during deep sea exploration? Um, ok? So what?
And, if you really think that, because they went to the moon 50 years ago, this means that someone should be exploring the stars by now, this demonstrates how little you understand about the topic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Soner, Dan Severns already answered, but, I'll present this to you a different way:
There is a concept called "optical resolution." There's only so much light that you can cram through a lens before the photons actually interfere with each other, and all you can see is a white blob. This is just a property of light, and there's no amount of technology that can ever do anything about it (besides trying to view in a different wavelength outside of the human eye's capability). You can look up the formula for the size lens that you'd need in order to see [whatever] at [whatever] distance, and do the math. In order to see an Apollo lander as just a dot, you'd need a lens about 75 feet in diameter. You would have no idea what it was, it would just be a dot. In order to actually be able to see it in enough resolution/detail to know what it is, it would require a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. Note: the largest optical grade lens ever constructed costed $168 million and has a diameter of 5 feet.
Side note: you might want to look up how they got that image of the black hole. It's pretty interesting. No, they didn't use a lens. And, what you see is the computer's representation of it, not an actual image. I'm not saying it's fake. No. It's real. But, it's not a photograph.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So, for any SANE person who might read this, here's what happened:
This guy posts thread after thread (which he keeps deleting, because he's not familiar with YouTube's latest comment-blocking algorithms). He says there were no photos of the sun in any of the Apollo photographs. How does he know this, when he doesn't even know how to find the official Apollo photo archive? Pfftt, undoubtedly because a video told him so, made by people who believe the same nonsense he does. So, I provided a bunch of catalog numbers of photos of the sun from the lunar surface during Apollo. And I told him what NASA's official archive website is called (Apollo Lunar Surface Journal). He says he refuses to search for those catalog numbers on Google, and he refuses to visit NASA's archive site. And, he said that this means the photos don't exist (i.e. Apollo is fake).
There are bunches and bunches of the photos he thinks don't exist. And, here the catalog numbers of a few of them:
AS12-47-6951
AS14-66-9283
AS17-147-22509
It's a simple matter of keying those catalog numbers into Google, and clicking "images." But, he refuses to do it. Is this because he's on an honest quest for photos of the sun? Or, is this because he is afraid it will shatter his delusions?
1
-
1